United States v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
622 F.2d 830 · 1980
Citation profile
125 federal appellate · 6 district · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 225 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2024 · most notably Illinois v. Gates (1983), United States v. Leon (1984)
125 federal appellate · 6 district · 51 state decisions — followed in 18 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1385 · 18 U.S.C. § 3146 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3148 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3150 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3151 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 18 U.S.C. § 401 · 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Wong Sun v. United States · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Mapp v. Ohio · Rakas v. Illinois
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 225 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(E)vidence is not to be suppressed under the exclusionary rule where it is discovered by officers in the course of actions that are taken in good faith and in the reasonable, though mistaken, belief that they are authorized.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““Henceforth in this circuit, when evidence is sought to be excluded because of police conduct leading to its discovery, it will be open to the proponent of the evidence to urge that the conduct in question, if mistaken or unauthorized, was yet taken in a reasonable, good-faith belief that it was proper. If the court so finds, it shall not apply the exclusionary rule to the evidence. Neither Markonni’s good faith nor its reasonableness are questioned here, and a proper allocation of the burden of proof on this issue is therefore not squarely presented by the facts of this case. We therefore leave that matter to another day, going no further than to delineate the ‘exception’ itself explicitly and to recognize that where the proponent establishes it, the evidence should be received if otherwise admissible.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“"[T]he belief, in addition to being held in subjective good faith, must be grounded in an objective reasonableness. It must therefore be based upon articulable premises sufficient to cause a reasonable, and reasonably trained, officer to believe he was acting lawfully." 622 F.2d at 841 , n. 4a.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.